Louisiana senator wary of federal carbon tax proposal

BATON ROUGE — With Congress debating tax cuts and overseeing part of the recovery for areas affected by Hurricane Sandy, the proposition of a national carbon tax has resurfaced.

Jeremy AlfordCapitol Correspondent

BATON ROUGE — With Congress debating tax cuts and overseeing part of the recovery for areas affected by Hurricane Sandy, the proposition of a national carbon tax has resurfaced. From a legislative perspective, the topic initially caught fire on the federal level not long after President Barack Obama was first elected four years ago. That’s when the U.S. House in 2009 stood alone in passing a carbon-related bill, viewed by some as a means to addressing global warming. In theory, a carbon tax would target and put a price on certain pollutants in an effort to curb them. States such as California, New York and Vermont, among several others in the Northeast, are already taxing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions through regional programs. In Washington, D.C., chatter about the possibility of a such a tax is on the rise. That’s despite officials with President Barack Obama’s administration repeatedly telling reporters and others that a carbon tax or what’s left of it is not on the political menu for 2012. That’s because once the dust settles on the ongoing fiscal negotiations, many expect the issue to be included in the tax reform talks of 2013. Last week, 14 nonprofit advocacy groups, largely seen as conservative organizations, sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to avoid the issue. Sen. David Vitter, a Metairie Republican, said “a lot of evidence is starting to surface that there is, potentially, a lot of discussion toward placing a tax on carbon in some shape or form — including within the Obama treasury department.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning government watchdog organization, recently asked the U.S. Treasury Department for all emails connected to the issue through a Freedom of Information Act request, Vitter said, and the department acknowledges that there are “at least 7,300 emails this year alone discussing ‘carbon.’ ”Vitter also recently co-sponsored a resolution expressing concern and raising additional questions on the matter. Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican from Kansas, is the other main sponsor. “There’s a lot of talk in Washington about raising taxes, and finding ‘revenues’ in creative ways to avoid going over the fiscal cliff,” Vitter said. “But a carbon tax — which would force more financial hardship upon family budgets, energy consumers and job seekers — needs to be completely taken off the table.” When it comes to putting it into practice, there are many alternative routes for creating a carbon tax. For example, a cap-and-trade program found favor with the House in 2009, but it stalled in the Senate not long after. As proposed in the past, such a system would force plants, manufacturers and other businesses to buy permits for their emissions, which would be capped. The permits could then be traded or sold to businesses with greater needs for emissions. The regional carbon-taxing programs on the state level could also be expanded, or the federal Clean Water Act could be applied in such a way that energy plants would under stiffer regulations. Another alternative would be a static tax on carbon implemented across the board. As such, these factors have so far created a debate partially based on philosophies rather than specific policy proposals. Last month, the Institute for Energy Research, an industry advocacy group, released a study “exposing the fallacies of so-called revenue-neutral carbon tax swaps, an idea that has gained some support among even conservative pundits and politicians despite numerous theoretical and practical problems with the scheme,” according to the group’s senior economist Robert P. Murphy. He said lawmakers should be wary of any plan to introduce a new carbon tax in the name of promoting economic growth.“The dismal record of the U.S. government in implementing efficient climate change policies is hardly evidence in favor of a massive new carbon tax,” he added. “On the contrary, it is evidence that such a new program will be abused in the political process and will not be tailored to the recommendations of climate scientists and environmental economists.”In a recent brief to Congress, the left-leaning Center for American Progress offered advice on the issue, including setting a price for carbon at a level that will lead to climate safety, rise over time and be phased in across all sectors. The brief’s final suggestion is multi-tiered: “The revenue needs to be directed to three uses: minimizing harm to vulnerable consumers and businesses, growing the economy with investments in clean energy infrastructure and other infrastructure that makes communities more resilient in the face of climate change, and reducing the deficit burden on future generations.”Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University climate and political scientist, recently told the Associated Press that Hurricane Sandy, among other factors, is helping bring attention to the issue, but it’s doubtful that it will gain any real traction given the politics surrounding global warming.‘‘Given the paralysis in U.S. politics, I really wonder if we’re up to the challenge,’’ Oppenheimer told the AP. ‘‘And regrettably, it might take more than one Sandy to get people awake.’’

Jeremy Alford can be reached at jeremy@jeremyalford.com.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.